The following slide deck was presented by Chris Parker at the 2014 Emerging Learning Design conference in Montclair, NJ.
My Ignite session is about using metaphoric thinking in learning environments. I demonstrate that metaphor has two parts, the tenor and vehicle. For example “my marriage is a rose with thorns.” Marriage is the tenor and rose is the vehicle. I will visually demonstrate target and domain. But also the tenor/vehicle can be considered as Domains of thought. These Domains can be Mental, Social, Intangible or Physical. Different Domains in tenor and vehicle make the bridge between tenor and vehicle longer, which makes for stronger metaphoric thinking. This is called Cross-domain mapping, a metaphoric thought process. Measuring the metaphoricity of the students’ writing using a gradient intuitive system has demonstrated higher levels of resultant metaphoric thinking. I will portray visually the gradient system.
http://eld.montclair.edu/eld14_schedule/
http://eld.montclair.edu/2014/03/03/metaphoric-thinking/
http://eld.montclair.edu/2014/03/18/christopher-parker/
11. CASE ROLES
• 1) Governor Christie is [flirting] with the
Democrats. One Case role
• 2) Governor Christie is [flirting and making out
with] the Democrats. One Case role with an
added phrase (lexeme) [not another Case role]
12. CASE ROLES
• 3) Governor Christie is [flirting with] [someone
else’s girlfriend].
• EVENT and BENEFICIARY
• Two different phrases (lexemes).
14. Measuring Metaphoricity
• Metaphoricity = [(# of domains) + (# of
mismatches or functions)] x (# Case roles) (Dunn,
2011)
Mental Intangible
Social Physical
• Case roles: participants in an event (Nireburg, 2004)
Agent Location Purpose Event
Beneficiary Path Source Experience
Instrument Destination Theme
15. Mismatch?
Mental
Mismatch
“Even as confident as a [fusion rose shimmering]
[in a fragile glass].”
Physical
1
16. Cross Domain Mapping?
“Even as confident as a [fusion rose shimmering]
[in a fragile glass].”
2
20. Metaphors be With You
• “…teachers and students, like poets, use
metaphor as a means of getting other people
to see things their way” (Abrahamson, 2012,
p. 56).
Notes de l'éditeur
Iwe think in analogies. We also necessarily think using language. The linguiatice equivalent of analogy is the metaphor. To form an analogy in usnderstainding a concept new to use, we fall back to familyr things we already know. The same is true with metaphor. We one thins is another. And even if you sue ad simile this is till metaphoric if not a meatphor, jkust like you can be poetics and not have written a poem. A way to measure the metaphoricity of a metaphor is what this talk looks at briefly a study I did measure metaphoricity of writing and see if it affected learning comepltd ideas in studytns.
My twenty-nine year marriage is a rose with thorns.
Of course we are well married enough to say that, and of course it refers to twenty-nine years filled with much joy and pain. And more
But we will divide this metaphoric poem, if you will into two basic parts which we will see next
My marriage is really not at all a physical thing a rose so that is a mitchmathc isnt it.
But here are two other was to write this all maybe true but intuitely you may feel they are somewhat less complete, less metaphoric:
My twenty nine year marriage makes two people one.
Or My twenty nine year marriage is like babysitting a toddler
Both social things.
So not really a mismatch as we will accept here in this short talk.
Also Like baby sitting a toddler is technicaly a simile. But according to the literaruture it is still metaphoric and is the result of metaphoric thinking.
There are many names in the literarture for these parts, but for now lets call them Tenor and Vehicle
Tenor is like a voice, what were speaking of.
Vehicle is like a car, that carries the meaning further.
And “a rose with thorns”, like perhaps “its raining cats and dogs” is here a lexeme. Not one word but a whole idea. So we will be measuring things in terms of lexemes in the metaphoric phrases evoked by metaphoric thinking
Here is how to “measure” metaphoricity as perhaps a result of metaphorical thinking (J. Dunn, 2011).
I have referred to domains, mismathces and case roles but I will further explain some of these
Gradient initutive way to measure metaphoricity. Or the strength of the metaphor. Metaphoricity is from metaphoric thinking
Dunn further suggests further studies in using his measurement system for natural language and computers. This talk is not about how much software there is to measure metaphoricity but in this conference you may see the value here in learning design computationally or otherwise
Something called “Case roles” identifies the different participants in an event. The event itself is also a Case role. Another word for Case role may be thematic role. The Case roles to be considered are widely explored in the literature. But Dunn considers this list: agent, beneficiary, instrument,
and location, path, destination, and purpose, source, theme (Nireburg, 2004) . I have mustered theme into this list structure because they seem to have som similarities. You may argue even right in some examples here what a case role should be really called, but you would probably agree it is a case role. What case role it is is not necessary for this forumula only that it is a case role ,with metaphoric content. A tenor and vehicle
Here are three more in a category. In the next slide Dunn adds event to this list, and I have placed it here preceding experience.
The sentence becomes metaphoric if any or all of these Case roles also contain metaphorical material. So to measure the density of the metaphoric expression we first break it into its different Case roles. Therefore, when a Case role does contain material from the Vehicle domain the density is increased.
Lexeme: a unit of lexical meaning. Unit does not mean that the lexeme contains just one word (which it may). Rather the lexeme may exist regardless of its content world count. For instance rain cats and dogs, happiness, face the music, and jog, are all lexemes. Lexemes are all a single unit of meaning (Crytal, 2003).
Here Below is an example a metaphoric expression with one metaphoric Case role, then another with a single lexeme filling that Case role
EVENT is the case role
1) Governor Christie is [flirting] with the Democrats. One Case role
2) Governor Christie is [flirting and making out with] the Democrats. One Case role with an added phrase (lexeme) [not another Case role]
and finally a version utilizing two lexemes.
The example above may demonstrate how adding more lexemes to a single Case role increases density only to a minimal degree. That is why there is only a minor difference between 1 and 2. On the other hand, adding another Case role intuitively increases density
We discussed before tha tenor and vehicle may be mismtathced that there is a geat chasm between the two and they need a bridge to get across sonceptually. We can measure that bridge, sometimes the longer the better in metaphor by looking at the domains of thought. There are only for in some of the literature, thought rthere is not time here to argue that. Metnal, Social, Intagnible and Physical. When for instance we have a metal tenor with a physcial vehicle we cross the bridge across the domains
. As the poet of this metaphor I am also the cartographier of the chasem and the bridge. That is Caleed Cross Domain Mapping. It is the relationship between Tenor and Vehicle that directly affects the strength of an underlying metaphor. So, what kind of relationship between Tenor and Vehicle adds to the strength or metaphoricity of an underlying metaphor?
Metaphoricity = [(# of domains) + (# of mismatches)] x (# Case roles)
Let’s start with the Domains:
Mental
Intangible
Social
Physical
Using the argument from earlier that Cross-domain metaphors are more metaphoric than Single-domain metaphors we can bring this value to two possible distance values, either 1 or 2, with Cross-domain maintaining the value of 2 and single-domain of 1.
Now let’s go to the mismatch measurements.
For mismatch, Dunn has determined that there are two scores available: 0 or 1. Tenor and Vehicle affect metaphoricity only where there is a mismatch. When Tenor and Vehicle are both Events, for example, then there is no mismatch in the metaphoric utterance and it is given a 0. When there is a mismatch it gets a 1, for instance, when an Object is an Event.
In this system there can only be, either, a mismatch, or not a mismatch, 1 or 0.
Or as an example from my pilot study:
Mental Physical
“Even as confident as a [fusion rose shimmering] [in a fragile glass].”
”Even as confident as a [fusion rose shimmering] [in a fragile glass].”
Mismatch
Is there one-domain or Cross-domain mapping? Here there are Cross-domains: “MENTAL IS PHYSCIAL.” That means the first number is 2. (Remember same domain gets 1.)
Now, for the next score of mismatch this metaphor gets a 1. That’s because there is a mismatch here for the metaphor. The formula so far: ((2 Domains) + (1 Function)). That’s three so far.
Now, how many Case roles are in these metaphoric sentences? There are 2. Multiplied against 3, that makes a number of 6.
THEME INSTRUMENT LOCATION
“Even as confident as a [fusion rose shimmering] [in a fragile glass].”
Recall that only Case roles with metaphoric content are measured in this gradient system
. That is why we will not count “Even as confident as” as a Case role because it does not contain metaphoric content, even though it is a THEME semantic constituent. But “fusion rose shimmering” does contain metaphoric content and may be considered an INSTRUMENT. Also “in a fragile glass” is a LOCATION, and is metaphoric as well. (Remember that what they are actually called does not matter in this case, only that they contain metaphoric content.)
Now, how many Case roles are in these metaphoric sentences? There are 2. Multiplied against 3, that makes a number of 6.
THEME INSTRUMENT LOCATION
“Even as confident as a [fusion rose shimmering] [in a fragile glass].”
Recall that only Case roles with metaphoric content are measured in this gradient system. That is why we will not count “Even as confident as” as a Case role because it does not contain metaphoric content, even though it is a THEME semantic constituent. But “fusion rose shimmering” does contain metaphoric content and may be considered an INSTRUMENT. Also “in a fragile glass” is a LOCATION, and is metaphoric as well. (Remember that what they are actually called does not matter in this case, only that they contain metaphoric content.)
Many studies show how metaphoric thinking can help students to learn complex concepts in math and science. No one has measured the metaphoricy or metaphoric thinking of students to see how that results in learning a concepts. My study does just that.
As Lakoff says we use metaphors all the time. So they alredy are there. You have to use them as a thinking tool. They are the linguistic version of models analogies.
Metaphors be with you
